Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffVideo-Cellar Date: Apr 20, 2009 12:45am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: MORE TO COME

He does that often. He also makes alot of mistakes in registering and renewing copyright. Like "Cat Women From the Moon" he registered and renewed the movie in the 29th year after its original copyright date. Waste of time.

He thinks he owns Rocketship X-M (PD in it's original version), Invaders From Mars (legally owned by Richard L. Rosenfeld & MPH), the TV series "Tales of Tomorrow" (never in copyright), And Then There Were None (1945, PD), DOA (PD), Plan Nine (PD), Jail Bait (never copyright), and so many more.

Looking at some of the things he has filled with the copyright office, it seems he thinks if you pay the estate of the director or producer and make a license agreement on a Public Domain movie you get exclusive rights.

The great thing is that he is constantly getting ripped off by the estates of some B-Grade producers/directors who market their "'copyright' catalogues" to him. The Popkin's sold him 12 of Harry and Leo's movies (only 2 had a valid copyrights). Kathy Wood sold him the rights to all of Ed Wood's films in the 80s. Only the then unreleased film "Night of the Ghouls" had any vaild claim to copyright. And he almost went to jail for selling stolen footage of Elvis Presley's final concert on EBAY.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Hg80 Date: Apr 21, 2009 1:21pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: MORE TO COME

Ah, a name from the past...Wade Williams. Wade lives in my city, though I had thought he had sold his million dollar estate and moved to California, and have dealt with him in the past regarding some 35mm theatrical trailers. He and some partners have refurbished at least two old movie theaters and turned them into a revival theater and a fine arts theater. I also discovered that he lays claim to copyrights of a cadre of films [some which are available here] and markets them as the "Wade Williams Collection" under Corinth Film Distributors. I have seen some of the films and technically they look like a first generation negative strike...some have even been supplied with scrolls for the hearing impaired. Wade has a poor reputation in this city and how he secured the rights to say "Plan 9" or "Invaders from Mars" is interesting.

This post was modified by Hg80 on 2009-04-21 20:21:29

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffVideo-Cellar Date: Apr 22, 2009 7:29am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: MORE TO COME

Williams generally makes the fundamental mistake that many make about copyright. He equates ownership of copyright with ownership of the physical work. Ownership of copyright, of course, has no impact on the ownership or title to the physical work. Copyright is simply the ownership of the intangible right of copying and distributing a work.
Williams on the whole purchased prints or elements of films and if he made it in time registered the films for renewal asserting to be the successor in ownership to the copyright and not just the successor in ownership to the print/elements involved. Essentially hijacking copyrights.
To me Williams is the Earl Owensby of film archive and preservation, proving that not even all the money in the world can buy talent, quality and class. But I might be being too harsh on Owensby there.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: guyzilla Date: Apr 25, 2009 4:24pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: MORE TO COME

They should make a movie about this guy. Call it "The Thing From Uranus"!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: cosmicola Date: Apr 22, 2009 8:22am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: MORE TO COME

I've seen what can happen when WW tries to make his "own" films (Attack from Mars). Beyond bad, and not in a fun or arty way at all.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: k-otic Date: Apr 20, 2009 2:09am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: MORE TO COME

Plan Nine (PD) ?!?
are you talking about Plan 9 from Outer Space (1959)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffVideo-Cellar Date: Apr 20, 2009 2:15am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: MORE TO COME

Yes. It was registered (film, screenplay and trailer, in 1981). Williams later attempted to secure renewal which were filed but do not correspond to the original registrations and are legally invalid.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: billbarstad Date: Jan 2, 2010 3:25pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: MORE TO COME

I'm planning to upload Plan 9 from Outer Space. I'd appreciate it if you would say how the copyright renewal does not correspond to the original registration so I can include this information when I post the movie, something like what you did with Cat-Women of the Moon. Don't know if it will make a difference if (when) IA gets a takedown notice, but I think it's worth a shot. Yes, I like to run the fool's errand occasionally.

I'd post Jail Bait too, but I can't find my copy.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Fact_Checker Date: May 4, 2011 6:49pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: MORE TO COME (Edward D. Wood Jr's "Jail Bait")

billbarstad wrote:
"I'd post Jail Bait too, but I can't find my copy."

Careful: the version of "Jail Bait" with the blackface skit is the film as released in 1952, which entered the public domain. There is a "director's cut" version put out in the 1990s that restored the sexy burlesque number which the original distributor cut out (leading said distributor to install the blackface skit so that there would be something would on stage during the theater scene). The restored footage is eligible for copyright protection because this scene was never published until recently, and thereby qualifies for our current relaxed copyright policies, which are not so stringent about registration and copyright notices, let alone renewal.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffVideo-Cellar Date: Jan 3, 2010 11:36pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: MORE TO COME

I think this pretty much sums up the situation for "Plan 9"



This film is in the public domain. “Grave Robbers From Outer Space” was originally published in the USA in 1959. The film was not immediately registered for copyright. It was registered by it's producer “Reynold's Pictures Inc” in 1981 (PA0000102338).
The film's copyright was renewed in 1986 by Wade Williams 3 (RE0000279707). In 1981, Williams lodged a quitclaim from Kathy Wood (Edward D Wood Jr's second wife [1956-his death] and heir. USCO doc. no. V1831P045) and separate quitclaims of interest from Norma McCarty (Edward D Wood's first wife - falsely listed on the filing as “Mrs. Edward D. Wood, Jr., successor of all rights to the Estate of Edward D. Wood, Jr.”, which she was not, as their marriage had been annulled) - and Reynolds Pictures, Inc.
This renewal was legally invalid for these reasons:
1)the registration and renewals were lodged providing the incorrect title on screen, date-in-notice and publication date for the original publication.
2)In order for a successor in interest to renew a copyright they have to demonstrate that they own the copyright through a valid transfer of rights from the party owning the copyright at or immediately before the renewal window. None of the parties Mr Williams sought quitclaims from were valid owners of copyright immediately prior to the renewal window. Valid copyright successors for this film “James Flocker Enterprises Inc” “Gold Key Video” Vidtronics Inc” and “Medallion Pictures”, all companies who are successors in the chain of ownership post registration, are not present in Williams' quitclaims. Williams has, instead, provided the the USCO with a series of meaningless assignments from parties which no longer held any copyright interest in the work in order to demonstrate “ownership” of the intellectual property in the film.
The screenplay was further registered as an unpublished work in 1989 (Pau001211635). This again is rendered legally invalid by the mere fact that large portions of the screenplay were previously published as part of the registered motion picture for which no valid copyright renewal exists.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: mrmccarty Date: Nov 16, 2012 8:05pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: MORE TO COME

My mother is Norma E. McCarty. She and my step-father, Ed, were married until the day he died, no annulment.
I don't know who told you they had an annulment, but I'm very sure whoever it was, didn't have any proof of an annulment, because there isn't any. However, you can get a copy of their Marriage Certificate.
Please stop saying they had an annulment. They both told me they were never divorced either.
Thank you,
Michael McCarty

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: billbarstad Date: Jan 5, 2010 3:04pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: MORE TO COME

It's up (http://www.archive.org/details/Plan_9_from_Outer_Space_1959). I did some minor editing on what you wrote. I hope that's OK, and I hope I didn't change the meaning. Thanks again!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Fact_Checker Date: May 4, 2011 6:21pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: MORE TO COME (Plan 9 From Outer Space copyright)

I have no argument with point #1 and that copyright registration of the screenplay does not mean anything because "large portions of the screenplay were previously published as part of the registered motion picture" (thus making copyright protection contingent upon copyright in the film itself).

However, it may be incorrect to decide that the renewal claimant lacked eligibility because "Valid copyright successors for this film 'James Flocker Enterprises Inc' 'Gold Key Video' 'Vidtronics Inc' and 'Medallion Pictures', all companies who are successors in the chain of ownership post registration, are not present in Williams' quitclaims."

The above companies may well have acquired the remainder of the first-term rights that began with J. Edward Reynolds, but Reynolds's rights may have not extended into the second term. "Plan 9" is in an unusual ownership situation because the project originated with Edward D. Wood Jr. independent of any company or financier, and only later did Reynolds come into the picture, seemingly as a backer rather than as someone to whom Wood had a work-for-hire arrangement. Under the 1909 Copyright Act, this would give Wood ownership of copyright after the first term, and owing to Wood's death prior to the end of the first term, any contractual term he signed forfeiting the second term would be void.

There are precedents supporting this interpretation. Were it the case that D.W. Griffith's part in spearheading "The Birth of a Nation" were such that he would own the second-term copyright, then it would be necessary that he had renewed the 1915 copyright in 1942-43. Instead, the distributor (which had not even been in existence at the time of production) renewed. A court determined that Epoch (the company) could not show it had been eligible to renew, so the renewal copyright was voided.

http://chart.copyrightdata.com/c07B.html#s142

The "Plan 9" renewal seems to be the reverse: the successor to the "auteur" (as it were) filed renewal, the distributors did not. I don't know whether Wade Williams has valid claims in this regard, nor do I know what contractual and financial arrangements were made between Wood and Reynolds (Could it have been work for hire? Did Reynolds qualify to be copyright claimant for all terms?), but I see there being grounds for interpreting the copyright status of this film in the way that I describe above.

The provisions of the 1909 Copyright Act which gave authors a "second chance" to sell rights when something they created still had a market 28 years after first publication -- which came about because Congress heeded Mark Twain's testimony about how he had earned little from "Innocents Abroad" in its first term -- usually impacted only songs and novels, not movies, but "Plan 9" was not a studio in-house movie. More cases:

http://chart.copyrightdata.com/c07B.html

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffVideo-Cellar Date: May 7, 2011 2:43am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: MORE TO COME (Plan 9 From Outer Space copyright)

The registration listed the authorship as "Reynold Pictures Inc., employer for hire". The work was registered as a work for hire.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: billbarstad Date: Jan 4, 2010 4:55am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: MORE TO COME

Thanks so much Shane! I'll quote and link to this post when I upload the movie. Hope it helps keep the film here.

Bill

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: cosmicola Date: Apr 20, 2009 2:31am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: MORE TO COME

I guess he challenged IA, and that's why Plan 9 was pulled some time ago? There are a few PD movies I've seen here in the past which later disappeared from the Archive. Most seemed to have some connection to WW.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffVideo-Cellar Date: Apr 20, 2009 2:38am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: MORE TO COME

I think IA just does not question a takedown notice. If they receive one they take the film down. Williams' people are well known for sending erroneous cease and desist orders.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: billbarstad Date: Apr 20, 2009 6:05am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: MORE TO COME

So is Cat-Women of the Moon (1953) as safe to post as Rocketship X-M (1950)?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: billbarstad Date: Apr 23, 2009 4:23pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: MORE TO COME

His registration for Cat-Women of the Moon is a year late (See picture 1), but the movie is properly registered (See picture 2).

Attachment: Picture_1.jpg
Attachment: Picture_2.jpg

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffVideo-Cellar Date: Apr 23, 2009 11:41pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: MORE TO COME

I am in the process of getting the movie ready for upload. The 28 years of copyright begins at the date in the film's copyright notice which is "MCMLIII" (1953) in this case. The regisration of copyright was proper and correct, but there needed to be a renewal registration lodged by 31 Dec 1981 for the copyright to continue, hence Williams' ommision of the 1953 "date of creation" and "in Notice" year from the renewal registration. Essentially the renewal registration was lodge 8 months after the film entered the public domain.

If WWC or Corinth Films send a takedown notice, I will consider suing them for copyfraud under the DMCA as my lasting legacy to the public domain.

This post was modified by Video-Cellar on 2009-04-24 06:41:48

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: billbarstad Date: Apr 24, 2009 5:56am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: MORE TO COME

I'm confused. Doesn't Z. M. Productions' registration of 4/23/81 matter? Is it because the registration refers to a videocassette? Anyway, it's great that you're going to post it and defend it, need be!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffVideo-Cellar Date: Apr 24, 2009 6:48am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: MORE TO COME

The ZM productions registration was a delayed initial registration. They didn't register the film in 1953 or 1954. Under the law, when a film was publishished with a valid copyright notice, it did not have to be registered with the copyright office to be protected, except to secure the extended term of copyright. Just having a notice protected the film for 28 years and registration was only necessary if you wanted to pursue copyright violators for damages. So, basically, a film could be registered for copyright any time up until and during the 28th year, but a renewal registration also had to be lodged by the end of the 28th year to secure the copyright for the extended term.

So, its a two step process for films published before 1964 with a notice but without a pre-publication registration. Firstly, there needed to be a registration filed before the end of the 28th year. Secondly, there needed to be a renewal registration filed before the end of the 28th year. ZM fulfilled step 1 but not step 2 and thus the film entered the public domain from 1 January 1982, eight months before Williams renewal lodgement.

Hope this explains it. It is not easy to get your head around the technicalities of registration and renewal.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: billbarstad Date: Apr 24, 2009 7:12am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: MORE TO COME

Thanks, it makes more sense now. I'm glad you're on-the-ball about these things, and a friend of the Archive!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: abisynthe Date: Nov 6, 2010 3:32am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: MORE TO COME

Quote: registration was only necessary if you wanted to pursue copyright violators for damages

That would be actual damages, no statute punitive damages. If I sue you for a kleenex, I will pay the lawyer fees to win one cent.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffVideo-Cellar Date: Nov 6, 2010 4:36am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: MORE TO COME

No, a timely registration was required to pursue statutory damages. It is still a feature of copyright law that in order to pursue federal statutory damages (and costs) a federal copyright registration must be filed. A copyright infringement case cannot be pursued without a registration because it acts as the only prima facie evidence of the copyright.

This post was modified by Video-Cellar on 2010-11-06 11:36:46

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: abisynthe Date: Nov 6, 2010 10:34am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: MORE TO COME

For works prior to 1989.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffVideo-Cellar Date: Nov 6, 2010 4:45pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: MORE TO COME

No, registration of US works and Non-Berne foreign works is still currently required to pursue court action in the US. Timely registration (before publication or within three months of publication) is required to access the full range of rights and remedies.

From Copyright Office Circ- 1 Copyright Basics (Revised Aug 2010) -

"Copyright Registration
In general, copyright registration is a legal formality intended to make a public record of the basic facts of a particular copyright. However, registration is not a condition of copyright protection. Even though registration is not a requirement for protection, the copyright law provides several inducements or advantages to encourage copyright owners to make registration.
Among these advantages are the following:
• Registration establishes a public record of the copyright claim.
• Before an infringement suit may be filed in court, registration is necessary for works of U. S. origin.
• If made before or within five years of publication, registration will establish prima facie evidence in court of the validity of the copyright and of the facts stated in the certificate.
• If registration is made within three months after publication of the work or prior to an infringement of the work, statutory damages and attorney’s fees will be available to the copyright owner in court actions. Otherwise, only an award of actual damages and profits is available to the copyright owner.
• Registration allows the owner of the copyright to record the registration with the U. S. Customs Service for protection against the importation of infringing copies. For additional information, go to the U. S. Customs and Border Protection website at www.cbp.gov/."

The full circular is available here

This post was modified by Video-Cellar on 2010-11-06 23:45:32

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: quigs Date: Apr 23, 2009 5:54pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: MORE TO COME

What a shame, if only to hear Elmer Berstein's score.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: cosmicola Date: Apr 23, 2009 6:25pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: MORE TO COME

Back in the early 1980s, Varese Sarabande records had announced a planned album release of Elmer Bernstein's scores for CAT-WOMEN OF THE MOON and ROBOT MONSTER. Too bad it never happened!

Speaking of E.B., I knew a producer who made extremely low-budget films, including one that Bernstein scored in the early 50s. It was one of Bernstein's first films. I asked this producer how much he paid for the score, and he said $200. Maybe that gives you an idea how cheap the film itself was.